Are super accepts alertable?

[Liversidge]

Under EBU regs which if any super accepts are alertable?

[paulg]

Under EBU regs which if any super accepts are alertable?

I would say this part of the Blue Book covers most of the reasons that they would be alertable, save for when the super accept is above the level of three no trump.

 

4 B 1 Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:

(a) is not natural; or

(b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning

[pran]

Under EBU regs which if any super accepts are alertable?

I would say this part of the Blue Book covers most of the reasons that they would be alertable, save for when the super accept is above the level of three no trump.

 

4 B 1 Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:

(a) is not natural; or

(b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning

Pardon me for asking:

Exactly what is the definition of a super accept? (In such terms as to distinguish super accepts from other types of calls).

[pescetom]

Under EBU regs which if any super accepts are alertable?

 

I don't play in EBU, but I remember that their Alert and Announcement table lists normal major transfers at same level as being announceable, and normal completion at same level as being no action. It seems logical to me to deduce that any other completion is alertable: if anything, the discussion should be whether a transfer where super accepts are possible remains announceable with just the name of the target suit, or should be alerted with a due explanation. Maybe there is some more detailed document that rules on this.

[pescetom]

Exactly what is the definition of a super accept? (In such terms as to distinguish super accepts from other types of calls).

A super accept is a reply that "disobeys" the normal transfer (for example a bid other than 2♥ after 1NT - 2♦) and implies a superior capacity to play in the target suit, due to unexpected length of fit or to maximum HCP strength or to both.

[Cyberyeti]

Under EBU regs which if any super accepts are alertable?

 

Any call of a suit that shows that suit (or a lack of it) but shows partner's transfer suit as well is alertable I suspect, a bid of NT that shows partner's suit would be, the only one that might not be is the jump completion eg 1N-2♦-3♥ but I tend to alert that anyway due to the min/max info it conveys.

[pescetom]

the only one that might not be is the jump completion eg 1N-2♦-3♥ but I tend to alert that anyway due to the min/max info it conveys.

the EBU Announcements Table doesn't list a jump completion as equivalent and it might well convey a meaning different from or additional to max hcp.

We use it as 4+cards fit and sub-max hcp, for instance.

[wank]

jump completing a transfer isn't alertable; anything else showing a fit would be.

[sfi]

jump completing a transfer isn't alertable; anything else showing a fit would be.

 

That's not necessarily true either. A common agreement here is for that to show a minimum with four trumps, which should make it alertable as well.

[pran]

A super accept is a reply that "disobeys" the normal transfer (for example a bid other than 2♥ after 1NT - 2♦) and implies a superior capacity to play in the target suit, due to unexpected length of fit or to maximum HCP strength or to both.

Thanks - clear enough!

[Cyberyeti]

That's not necessarily true either. A common agreement here is for that to show a minimum with four trumps, which should make it alertable as well.

 

Which is what it is for me and why I alert it

[Tramticket]

Some pairs break the transfer whenever they hold four-card support. Under these circumstances, completing the transfer shows three-card or fewer support. I believe that in this case you should alert the transfer completion (a potentially unexpected meaning).

[PeterAlan]

The relevant elaboration of Blue Book 4 B 1 (b) quoted by paulg above is its regulation 4 H 2 (f):

 

4 H 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:

...

(f) The completion of a transfer that shows a specific holding in the suit bid (e.g. following a 1NT opening, a transfer completion that specifically denies four card support or shows three card support)

I don't agree with Alex: if a jump completing a transfer shows a specific holding (for example, if it shows 4-card support) then it is alertable under this regulation. Correspondingly, if your agreements are that with 4-card support you will either jump or break (which one depending on other features), so that a simple non-jump transfer completion denies 4 cards, then that non-jump completion is also alertable.

[steve2005]

Why would a jump showing 4 trump be alertable? This would be completely expected, If you jumped on 3 trump that would be unexpected and alertable.

[PeterAlan]

Why would a jump showing 4 trump be alertable? This would be completely expected, If you jumped on 3 trump that would be unexpected and alertable.

Because that's what the regulation I quoted says. You may think it's completely expected, but the regulation seems quite clear to me.

[steve2005]

Because that's what the regulation I quoted says. You may think it's completely expected, but the regulation seems quite clear to me.

So if the jump showed 3 trump would it be alertable?

[pescetom]

So if the jump showed 3 trump would it be alertable?

 

I interpret the regulations to mean that the only non-alertable bid after a transfer announcement is a non-jump bid in the target suit which represents an obligatory completion and does not convey any information. Which is the basic Jacoby transfer convention.

 

So ANY of my own responses would be alertable, including a non-jump bid in the target suit (which in my agreements conveys the information sub-maximal HCP and three cards or less support).

[weejonnie]

I interpret the regulations to mean that the only non-alertable bid after a transfer announcement is a non-jump bid in the target suit which represents an obligatory completion and does not convey any information. Which is the basic Jacoby transfer convention.

 

So ANY of my own responses would be alertable, including a non-jump bid in the target suit (which in my agreements conveys the information sub-maximal HCP and three cards or less support).

I alert the bid as well - to advise opponents that we have ways of showing excellent support. After all, opponents are entitled to know what I know. Maybe I don't have to but 'active ethics' seems to be a buzz word these days.

[blackshoe]

Buzz phrase, maybe. B-)

 

I'm not sure how the EBU views it, but in the ACBL, negative inferences like this are generally not alertable. So if you play say 2NT as showing a non-minimum 1NT opening with three trumps, and 3M as a non-minimum 1NT opening with four trumps, both of those would be alertable, but 2M simply showing a hand that cannot bid 2NT or 3M is not.

[barmar]

The way I interpret it is that if you have multiple ways of super-accepting, such as bidding a suit suit to show a super-accept and a doubleton in the bid suit, then you should alert all your super-accepts.

 

But if you play the simpler method where you simply jump to 3 of the major when you have a max + 4-card support, and it provides no other implicatons about your shape, then that doesn't need to be alerted because it's natural and has the expected meaning.

[pescetom]

The way I interpret it is that if you have multiple ways of super-accepting, such as bidding a suit suit to show a super-accept and a doubleton in the bid suit, then you should alert all your super-accepts.

 

But if you play the simpler method where you simply jump to 3 of the major when you have a max + 4-card support, and it provides no other implicatons about your shape, then that doesn't need to be alerted because it's natural and has the expected meaning.

I agree that a transfer with a jump reply in the target suit is a relatively "natural" convention, but it's not an integral part of the standard Jacoby transfer and it might be argued that it would only be really "natural" if the transfer promised enough strength to make the jump a reasonable risk when playing rubber, whereas many of us bid transfer on 0 HCP garbage.

In any case the EBU does not seem to allow your interpretation:

Blue Book 2017 4 H 2b (f) said:

4 H 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:

...

(f) The completion of a transfer that shows a specific holding in the suit bid

 

 

I'm not sure how the EBU views it, but in the ACBL, negative inferences like this are generally not alertable.

The laws make it clear that negative inferences derived from agreed conventions must be disclosed to the opponents: it's up to the Regulating Authority how this is acheived. EBU seems to make some clear pragmatic choices. In Italy the FIGB says that any conventional bid below 3NT must be alerted, with no concessions made for common conventions, period. But of course there is always a grey area, particularly when a conventional bid coincides with a natural bid (like a Stayman reply showing a major), or when a natural bid had a conventional alternative, and it just wouldn't be practical to alert all inferences linked to actual or possible conventional bids. Nor is is realistic to expect club players to have full system notes.